Re: <nettime> subjective math.

[brian carroll <nulltangent@gmail.com>]

Michael H Goldhaber wrote:

> How does your approach relate to or differ from Lotfi Zadeh's  
> "fuzzy logic?"


 Hello Michael, thanks for your interesting question.

 I had not heard of Lotfi Zadeh because my path into logic
 was through individual explorations with the alphabet as
 a phase-changing system, experimenting with letters and
 numbers, their reflections and rotations of shared structure.
 This was verified by a university math teacher to be a form
 of calculus, who recommended a course on 'probability'
 which closely relates set theory and venn diagrams in
 what may be considered a 'weighted analysis' of sorts.

 This is the form of mathematics that should be taught in
 early and all education because it is of practical value
 for basic reasoning, in terms of its allowing for robust
 evaluation and understanding of involved ramifications.
 It allows someone to reason something is 'probable' in
 a way that tends towards absolute truth in reasoning,
 and this is different than saying it is likely or possible.
 So there is deep empirical grounding it can reference
 if ideas are mediated in terms of their truth and logic.

 Going into this course I think the concept was already
 existent of 'superposition' in terms of the alphanumeric
 sign (HIOX) which is replicated in a 16-segment LED
 display, essentially a union jack symbol that generates
 all western letters and numbers. Further, for numbers,
 the 7-segment display, an LED component used in
 electric clock radios and equipment for readout, is
 a simpler example of the superposition concept...

 (note: I did not know the physics word 'superposition'
 yet had some sense of the concept because of this...)

 The 7-segment LED looks like a letter '8' that is more
 rectilinear and box-like. Within this symbol, all of
 the numbers - 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 - can be regenerated.
 So in a sense they are suspended within this '8' that is
 not actually an '8' when it is not lit-up, only outline
 or matrix for a potential 8 or 1 or 3, etc. So there is
 a potential number, 0 through 9, that can be displayed.
 Also hexadecimal letters (A B C D E F) can generate
 from the symbol, so there is an alphanumeric aspect.

 In this way, without calling it 'superposition' this same
 "potentiality" was noticed in these cultural symbols,
 the 16-segment or HIOX symbol (which is called that
 because it equates to the overlaying of those letters)
 often is seen in building details from ancient times,
 yet also in federal buildings worldwide, in addition to
 use in electronics as alphanumeric display components.
 For the 16-segment, the entire alphabet and number
 system can be recreated from a single symbol, so in
 this way its potentiality is 26 letters and 10 numbers
 though it can go beyond that given extended signs.

 Investigating the structural relations between letters
 and numbers, especially after reading The Republic
 by Plato where this activity was directly referenced,
 became a major question and cultural enigma: why
 is this not being discussed, why is there no record of
 such an amazing ordering device, if not 'parti' (which
 a professor described as being 'organizational logic').
 Especially its code-like or mastercode-like attributes
 in civilization. Plato had described part of it in Meno
 yet only a part of the symbol related to its geometry.

 I did not know what to call any of this until taking the
 course in probabilities and then it became possible
 to begin conceptualizing the condition it exists within
 in terms of exponential counting, or relationships, if
 it can accurately be described this way. The enigma of
 superposition can be presented as a riddle and this
 is easily demonstrated by these generative symbols.
 For example, a 7-segment display could be used to
 animate a sequence of the letter E and number 3 in
 a spinning condition, around a central axis, which
 then would appear as a number '8' (if not letter B) on
 the electronic display or even via a physical motor
 with a single alphanumeric shape, a number 3 on
 oneside and a letter E on the other, set spinning.

 If observing this spinning shape, knowing it may
 be either a letter E or number 3, yet because of its
 motion it is indistinguishable and merged into one
 entity, essentially -both- letter -and- number, then
 its potentiality may be hard to determine precisely
 at a given observation, is it a number 3 or letter E?
 What if it is somewhere between, what does that
 mean - in that a gradient could potentially exist.
 This is essentially the limit of binary reasoning,
 a boundary condition for observation. Depending
 on how fast it is spinning, the blurring that occurs
 could either constitute its own entity, such that it
 is only possible to see in terms of its being '8',
 which is outside the question (3|E), because it
 is precisely not just one or the other choice. So
 the transformative condition in which the objects
 exist cannot be evaluated in the binary terms, as
 if they are still simply distinguishable as a 3 or E.

 Or if the spinning is slowed down, depending on
 if an electronic display or physical model, it may be
 possible to say, that it is a letter at one moment in
 its rotation, or that it is identifiably number. Though
 this situation can vary in the extremes given how it
 is set up as an experiment to evaluate observation.
 If the 7-segment simply blinked an 'E' or a '3' it would
 be possible to determine in binary [yes/no] terms if it
 was either this or that, if the 7-segment display was
 switching back and forth slowly enough. Yet at some
 threshold it becomes blurred, imperceptible in that a
 distinct number or letter are lost to their fusion.

 With an analog model, with a motor rotating a vertical
 axis with a sign that is 'E' on one-side and '3' on the
 other, speeding this up into a blur, then a fusing of
 these two into one. If very fast it would be difficult
 if not impossible to distinguish which is which in the
 given naked eye observation. It could be both 'E' and
 '3' at the same time because it is moving so quickly.

 If this physical model was slowed down, an observer
 positioned at some location around its 360 degree
 rotation could potentially in standing still watch as
 as the number 3 becomes the letter E, going from an
 exact reference, where 3=3 or E=E, momentarily, to
 a partial match, where it is mostly 3 or mostly E, and
 in this way as the analog shape (a cutout form that is
 spinning on its axis, with a letter on oneside, number
 on the other, if not each side a different color) turns,
 it then is in a middle-state, or 3-value condition, that
 is somewhere inbetween an exact binary category. In
 that a flattened shape exists as it moves towards the
 central axis, like a capital 'i' or 1, given its depth.

 3 ==> | ==> E ==> | ==> 3

 (example of 2D/3D shape spinning on vertical axis)

 Another way to convey this is that as the shape turns
 its horizontal 'arms' become shortened, thus warped
 and the shape itself warps until it is flattened out as
 it spins on axis. So there is shortening of these arms
 as the 3 turns sideways, where it appears only as:  |
 and likewise with the E as it turns and flattens out.

 This is equivalent to opening up a graphics editor,
 typing out a letter or number in a font, and then
 choosing to modify its width, from 100% to say
 50%, then 30%, then 1% at which point it is: |

 And what this is to question is at what point does
 the E stop being an E as an exact match: E = E.
 And likewise for the number three. At what point
 is it only a partial-E, not an exact match to what is
 known to exist (the shape seen directly) versus at
 an oblique angle while it is moving and changing.
 And thus is a 99% E still an E or is it crossing some
 boundary condition, where it is largely the same yet
 taking on more and more paradoxical qualities as it
 moves into a less clearly distinguishable realm. And
 so how is it determined when it stops being what it is
 based on observational conditions, how it is viewed.

 I did not have an answer to this, it was a question
 that for me was quintessentially of paradox. And
 yet knew of this potentiality of these symbols. That
 their basic character involved this dimensionality
 and yet there were no words that could describe it,
 only later was the concept of superposition heard of.


 The thing that opened my mind during the probability
 course was the classic coin toss example. Oddly, this
 was contemplated before mentioned in this thread yet
 also is prescient because like a random-event-generator
 pulling 'forms' out of the noise of the shared atmosphere,
 there is some potentiality to thinking as it exists in the
 world especially in overlapping realms of empirical reasoning,
 intuition, psychological if not psychic, that directly relates
 to the issues of probability in its statistical grounding of
 information as pattern. And so there are some wonderful
 'coincidences' in the parallelism of shared consideration
 and it seems this could be implicit yet often in the unsaid,
 that such modeling exists in our distributed evaluations
 yet they may never be linked or conveyed in real-time.

 To the coin-toss, it is a classic 50:50 scenario seemingly.
 The following URL has a helpful interactive explanation,
 and reminds me of an important lesson from probability;
 that it mathematically involves the area between 1 and 0.
 1 is associated with truth and 0 is associated with falsity.

 Probability - theory of tossing coins
 http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/jo/probability/info.htm

 And so calculations that often exists as 'towards 1' such
 as .99 which is still not absolute truth or 1, yet highly
 like 1, nearly so, and in this way it would be easy to say
 it is 'highly probable' if it were regarding an evaluation
 in terms of its weighting, .30 would be closer to falsity,
 and thus 'improbable' in terms of tending toward truth.

 This is relevant if 'reasoning' were occurring at .10 in
 terms of its empirical evaluation, or .05 out of 1, which
 is what the previous claim of subjective math involves.
 Whereas grounded modeling could tend toward .99 via
 a rigorous methodology going beyond this languaging.

 In any case an epiphany occurred in class because this
 classic coin-toss is the ultimate binary assumption, that
 a coin lands on either 'heads' or 'tails' -- even the above
 explanation makes it seem this simple and yet because
 of probability it is astounding not correct. In other words
 this classic 2-value situation actually exists in 3-values
 and under certain highly improbable conditions the coin
 could land on its edge (!) -- meaning, heads/edge/tails.

 It is a miniscule change, born of mathematical analysis,
 and yet if tossing a coin enough it could feasibly occur.
 In the 2-value analysis, such an event would be in error
 and ignored, a new toss would occur to substitute for the
 anomalous event, because it is outside the criteria used
 for evaluation of heads or tails. Whereas 'edge' is both
 or neither heads or tails. 3-value.

 What is amazing about this 'potentiality' is that a coin-
 toss is not a 50:50 situation, it is more like 49.999%
 and 49.999%, likely more nines on each, yet in that
 approximation somewhere is hidden this other event,
 this other possibility or potential that challenges the
 model and yet can remain otherwise unaccounted for
 due to prevailing binary assumption. Thus an issue of
 ambiguity in what could be the most clear-cut example
 of binary processing and decision-making, flipping an
 object on one-side or another and determining what
 side it lands on or is observed. And that this sidedness
 can become ambiguous or its boundary condition can
 at times not describe the event that actually occurs.

 Whoever has played football (soccer here in the U.S.)
 may have been at a coin toss to determine the kickoff,
 which team starts play. In those conditions, depending
 on the length of grass, perhaps its variety, density even,
 a coin toss can at times be itself inconclusive -- the coin
 can land close to vertically within grass and thus a new
 toss is required to determine which team has the ball.

 In other words, in some cases it is not entirely vertical
 (I) yet may only be 5% heads and thus inconclusive,
 and this again is that question of gradient, gray-area.

 It is also possible that within a given environment, say
 a highly magnetic force-field generated realm, that a
 tossed coin could be prevented from falling on its side,
 such that it remains vertical given its peculiar context.
 And thus indeterminate if viewed as heads or tails.

 So in the classroom an empirical statistical anomaly
 actually could be encountered in everyday situations
 and the binary coin toss (that is not always this) is an
 example of another realm currently unaccounted for.

 While this 'potential' for a third value exists in binary
 considerations, it is not allowed to or disregarded,
 these important anomalies where experience and
 knowledge reside, realms of observations invalidated
 by binary reasoning because it does not fit into the
 simple black or white worldview, true or false, on/off.

 So in that situation: what may be 1 in 10,000 odds
 if not far lower of a coin landing on its edge within
 certain conditions, is compared to the probability it
 lands on its side, one or the other, is nearly certain
 or probable (nearly 100%) or .9999999 whatever.
 (percentages and probably are different realms,
 though .9999 as it relates to truth or 1 can also
 be translated into 99.99% as related to 100%).

 It is about proportion. It is almost impossible or
 highly improbable, this 3-value scenario in the
 coin-toss, yet in real-life it is often encountered.
 And thus mathematically, this binary evaluation
 (evaluation of 'truth' and 'falsity') is nearly certain
 in its capacity to model such an either-or-event.
 Such that this statistical anomaly is disregarded
 in explanation of the coin toss. Yet it is potential.


 This potentiality, its hidden quality that can be
 expressed under certain conditions, was what
 opened up the question of 3-value consideration
 for me, in that it allowed a way of understanding
 and evaluating paradox in its 'inbetweenness.'
 If it is not a heads or tails, what is it? Well, it
 can be this other value, this third option. And thus
 for instance the question of the 7-segment display
 with an E or 3 in a blurred merged unification
 could become this third value. And further, if it
 is modeled in analog it could be even more this
 as the gray-area could expand to partial-states
 whereby N-value observations or finer sampling
 of the figure could chart its movement across the
 realm from 0 to 1 and 1 to 0 via continual rotation;
 moving from 3 into not-3, else 3, partial-3, not-3
 for instance, to even .3 or .1 or .99 evaluations.

 So what do you call something that is potentially
 many things yet not distinguishable as these things.
 That there is some probability it exists in the structure
 yet may not be on the surface for observation given
 existing conditions. Say it is embedded ordering or
 latent part of its structural potential yet not activated.

 The 7-segment or 16-segment LED displays in this
 way relate to probability in so far as they potentially
 can display all numbers and hexadecimal for the
 first, and all numbers and letters in the second, and
 yet any letter or number may not be visible within a
 given observation or particular conditions. And yet
 if either of these symbols were itself lit up, what is
 the possibility it could be a given letter or number
 or some combination thereof. For instance, if there
 is a 7-segment display lit up as the number '8' as is
 its iconic form, each of the letters b d p q could be
 in that particular shape. If there were only 2 letters,
 what is the probability of any given pair, combined.
 They are not all equal, b and d together would not
 add up graphically to an 8, nor the letters p and q.
 Yet the b and q could else d and p could. So the
 odds of various contexts and situations can shift
 according to the way things are structured and
 how they relate, according to number but also
 beyond this, to include that of pattern-matching
 in certain scenarios. It is in this way logic can
 become an issue of visual reasoning, where it
 is about modeling ideas and shared structuring,
 where it enters into a realm of puzzlework, ideas.
 Fitting together, rearranging, identifying patterns.

 It is difficult to know if this is conveying the basic
 idea given the abstraction necessary to share a
 real-world example that could be locally tested.
 What it is an attempt to provide is a basis for how
 3-value observations are a regular occurrence yet
 remain this day mediated in binary 2-value terms,
 thus forcing both inaccurate observations yet also
 ungrounded 'absolutist' frameworks for reasoning
 whereby [absolute truth] is assumed the default for
 basic exchange when it is closer to .0000001, etc.

 The discovery for me was that what was modeled
 in probability is actually inverted in real-world
 practice, in that experience tends towards 3-value
 not 2-value, and so the latter is improbable versus
 its assumed authority for decision-making and for
 determining what will be true by ignoring anomaly.
 In other words, the probability that absolute truth
 is being mediated without error is tending towards
 absolute falsity (0) versus that it is highly probable
 given that things may not function in A=A dynamics
 yet may be forced into those framework by default.

 At some point I think when there was a levitating
 magnet on dry ice at a campus exhibit that talk of
 superposition may have been encountered or of
 consideration of molecular structures in reading.
 And in the way it offers a conceptual description,
 as something could be 1/3rd or 2/3rds something
 that it begins to offer a way to describe how partial
 states can exist inbetween the end parameters that
 a situation spans, in the gray area between 'sides'.

  3=3	partial-3		|	partial-E		E=E

 That realm between 3=3 and E=E is the gray-area
 and this is a realm that can be ambiguous and may
 not even be known as 'partial 3' or 'partial E' it may
 instead be 'unknown' or 'unidentifiable' in contrast.
 It could be not-3 and not-E yet function within the
 parameters outlined, where a question of 3 or E
 may instead be evaluated in terms of 'other'. If the
 actual substance of this is under review, it is further
 to propose that 3=3 or E=E may not be real-world
 conditions and it may only ever be: A = ~A, or that
 partial evaluations exist due to the inaccessibility of
 absolute frameworks, beyond mathematic idealism.

 While a basic experiment such as an animated LED
 display could involve matching symbols, if this gets
 into language and ideas, it more often than not most
 likely or probably always involves a realm such as:

  [A]		[~A]		<-------- | -------->		[~B]		[B]


 Where A=A equates with 1 or truth, and B=B likewise,
 these absolute yet contingent, such that observations
 normally occur always within the range of [~A to ~B]
 which is the grey-area of three value, n-value logic.

 What this is to say is that scientific observation, most
 mathematics, likely all language, exists in the partial
 realm of ~A to ~B, or 'on the edge of the coin toss', in
 that truth is mixed with bias, distortion, warping, error,
 and thus is 'partially true' to greater or lesser degree
 yet that impurity keeps it beyond the purity of 1, yet if
 existing uncorrected, moves towards zero instead in
 terms of exchange upon exchange upon exchange
 in this partial condition. So in certain circumstances
 it may not even be possible to mediate an either-or
 framework or use binary decision-making because
 the absolute framework does not realistically exist
 as an observational condition, if anomalies exist,
 such that it is only partially true, not wholly true.
 In this way the realm of A and B are removed as
 'ordinary' conditions, this grounded empiricality.
 It is a presumption detached from the reality, to
 include scientific observation on its own terms
 without accounting for truth outside its biasing.

 In other words, what is modeled by probability
 relates to how something exists and is evaluated.
 If a coin is only assumed to have 2-sides and no
 depth, the edge is only a fiction, and yet it is not,
 if it has an edge then it is somehow part of the
 modeling. Likewise if a concept or idea has
 N-dimensions and only say 10 of them are
 referenced, this is only a partial evaluation of
 its potential as an [idea], and therefore this is
 how superposition can exist in terms of the
 empirical modeling of things, their relativisms
 each a probability to some degree or another,
 as facets of the larger whole, yet like the classic
 story of those touching parts of an elephant, it is
 not an elephant until brought together whole, in
 this way, so too, ideas concepts words meaning.
 That is why grounding of circuitry is required for
 accurate modeling that removes error which in
 itself statistically tends towards its own falsity,
 whereas today this is relied upon as structure.
 Someone can speak of the foot, all in itself as
 the whole and either disregard someone else
 speaking of the tusk or they likewise the other,
 and the observations never add up, empirically.
 Its turned inside out, a universe of elephant foot,
 elephant ear, elephant tusk, yet no elephant here.
 The elephant in the room invisible because of this.


 The issue of fuzzyness then in terms of ambiguity
 in the potential states of a given observation and
 its criteria, its range of questioning. The term was
 heard at some point online and intuitively already
 understood, because of this reasoning process.
 No formal mathematical relation beyond that of
 the 3-value discovery within the coin toss example,
 which is essentially opening up a larger realm of
 the n-value, which fuzzyness tends to describe in
 that it has a larger range of potential ambiguities.

 The wonderful aspect of reading about Lotfi Zadeh
 is that his discovery and mathematical development
 was seen related to his overlapping heritage, in that
 common everyday experience of how questions exist
 and how they are mediated. And then with his skills
 translating this observation via mathematic reasoning
 which I cannot read so cannot truly relate to the work.
 It is an abstraction modeling the characteristic in itself,
 it would seem, whereas by comparison it could be an
 issue of mediating superposition of [countries] or of
 [heritage] and remain valid in terms of 'fuzzy logic' as
 this relates to 3-value and more likely n-value views.

 e.g.  X = country       ~X = { .IR .RU .US .AZ }

 In terms of grounded reasoning, everyone has the
 capacity to be a logician, to evaluate 'logic' in these
 everyday terms and it is only an issue of literacy and
 providing a way of communicating what is already
 known and already mediated yet forced into the
 false perspective of binarism. And so a person does
 not need to be a mathematician or read complex
 notation or other calculative equation-based views
 to get at the essence of things, their question and
 accurate appraisals and to analyze and develop
 models and hypotheses for testing and evaluation.
 A=A and A=~A and 1 and 0 and probabilities and
 weighting between truth and falsity (.99 <-> .01)
 would allow a majority of empirical reasoning to
 take place and be mediated in debate and within
 shared observation, accounting for truth and error.


 Fuzzy logic and fuzzy math and fuzzy sets have
 been related to ambiguous data, especially with
 robotics and machine-vision where a robot will
 evaluate a situation in terms of pattern-matching,
 where it may only have partial-matches to what
 it already knows, and thus like a puzzle, it seeks
 to identify what matches and what does not, and
 something may be A = A and recognized while
 others may be A = ~A and only a partial view of
 something larger and it may remain a question.
 And so it is contingent, a potential, a possibility.
 Is the robot in one hallway or another, maybe it
 needs to turn around and add up another view
 to get more information and then might know.
 Else maybe it needs to start mapping beyond
 its known boundary and thus extend off of the
 data sets already established, building on their
 structure, as hallways connect or light fixtures
 change or obstacles are repeatedly encountered
 and thus become established reference points.
 A puzzle then, a question, a person or robot in
 a condition, partly knowing and partly not, and
 only in some cases mediating A = A, while in
 many others it could be functioning beyond
 this, in partial realms where ~A predominates
 the relationship between observer & observed.

 Now what if our robot, ourselves, were to assume
 what is the operating model for our machine vision
 is A=A when it is actually not, and thus reasoned
 viewpoints are ungrounded, not mapping the
 territory that exists, only virtual if not unreal. And
 so what would happen if the robot suddenly were
 to shift to ~A = ~A modeling, that in its resolution
 can tend towards a grounded A=A condition, yet
 only after connecting every perspective, accurately
 evaluating every angle of every potential observer
 and then mediating the shared condition this way.


 An example of the ambiguity of observation is
 provided by a prevailing question in 1872 about
 whether a galloping horse has one foot on the
 ground or if all of its feet are off the ground at
 the same time. This could be a question of belief,
 some may say 'yes' there is a foot on the ground
 at all times, others may say 'no' there is not. Yet
 because it was not possible to actually tell since
 the movement was so quick, that like a spinning
 object in superposition, a potential existed that
 either event was a possibility. And thus, it could
 be evaluated as a 3-value situation, where the
 observation exists in 'the unknown', between
 these two choices. And so when Muybridge
 the photographer did his animal locomotion
 photographs, it resolves this scenario by
 enabling a finer sampling rate, by allowing
 the human eye to catch up with the pace of
 the horse, and so to see beyond its boundary
 and verify that all feet are off the ground and
 the horse is in flight during its galloping state.

 What could not be determined and was in a
 realm of ambiguity was through further and
 increased examination then determined to
 be on a given side. Yet without that extra
 involvement of inquiry, it could remain in
 a realm of the unknown. A possibility or
 potential yet inconclusive, not yet known.
 Though it could be believed, assumed.

 Most language exists in this [ambiguity],
 especially those [concepts] referenced in
 their [archetypal] permanence, as if they
 are already known by being referenced,
 when instead, these are scenarios not of
 [on/off] in terms of their truth, instead
 they are more [galloping horses] in terms
 of the [unknowns] mixed in with the knowns
 that remain undifferentiated in language.

 Logic and empirical grounding of the
 observers, like Muybridge's camera to
 the question of the gallop, allows this
 finer resolution of sampling to occur,
 by combining all views of the event,
 then to determine its legitimacy in its
 wholeness versus in its [partiality].
 In that a person could witness one hoof
 off the ground and assume all hoofs,
 and another one hoof on the ground
 and assume all hoofs on the ground.
 And so concepts, ideas, reasoning
 ad absurdum, in terms of exchange.


 Reading and writing today could be
 equivalent to pattern matching, and
 given the means of logic, how accurate
 or inaccurate a given view may be if it
 is grounded in truth or within a virtuality
 that tends towards an absolute falsity.
 The idea is a circuit that grounds through
 its logic back into the truth that structures
 and sustains it. If the idea is faulty, or its
 structuring, it collapses upon inspection,
 cannot withstand the forces of evaluation
 due to bias, warping, distortion, other views.
 The empirical is made & meant to withstand
 this, because it is based within truth, robust
 in that truth is its foundation, its structure,
 logic establishing and supporting this. And
 here to convey that it is and can be 3-value
 logic, that is tending towards absolute truth of
 the binary, of highest probability observations
 that the improbable and-or inaccurate would
 not be allowed alongside unless its truth is
 proven and removed of error, otherwise it
 would make contaminate "the entire map".
 The threshold for logical reasoning, for
 exchange, is truth. It is the requirement.
 Not just affect or opinion or assumption.
 And this tends towards debate, contention,
 argument, hypothesis and shared modeling.
 The challenge of ideas versus their neutering.
 The beauty of thought versus its incapacitation.


 In other words, these words are written to try
 to convey something, yet more and more words
 must be written to clarify what already cannot be
 said by their use. It is as if writing for clarification
 and yet never achieving, only approximating it.
 Like it is never within this framework even, yet
 attempting to be accessed within such language.
 To write new ideas takes more words, many more.
 Because there is no pre-established view to access.
 So it is tremendously inefficient and time-consuming
 to convey original thinking versus what is already
 answered and can be assumed as a shared POV.
 In this way, communication tends to the ideologic
 and as language by default, to the ungrounded.
 In this way truth is outcast from conversation and
 relativized in gated communities of binary opinion.
 These dynamics of:  lesser truths > greater truth
 that biasing, limits, boundaries, warping allow.


 So what if logic is actually something ordinary and
 not removed from common experience, that it is
 natural and part of inherent processing abilities,
 and it is more an issue of reconfiguring it so that
 it is more accurate and aligned with truth, than of
 having some esoteric expert practice requiring of
 new degrees to achieve, versus of common sense.

 Perhaps it is like puzzlework, each of us our own
 puzzles to mediate, questions, perspectives, and
 observations, given dimensionality: puzzle-logic.

 What if [concept1] and [concept2] are viewed in
 this framework of missing pieces and alignments
 and order and structure and relationship between
 various states and conditions. What if [this] and
 [that] are mediated both by a given individual and
 also by a group, and some have some pieces and
 others have others, and that only together will the
 combined [this-and-that] be achieved in its gradient
 resolution, as the N-dimensional hoofs or the other
 details are brought together in a shared framework
 or coherent structure, to error-check & error-correct,
 and in this way to more accurately model what exists.

 The difference between a 2-value and 3-value
 paragraph could be that a biased 2-value person
 may mediate it in onesided terms, such that it is
 viewed as a 100% true in language, due to belief
 removed of its validation in actual truth. It can be
 viewed as 'perfect' because some truth exists in it,
 is carried by its scaffolding and perhaps this is its
 potential, to convey truth via this conflicted medium.

 And yet a 3-value evaluation could look at the same
 paragraph and see it in more ambiguous terms, of
 partial truth amidst partial falsity, and could only
 determine what is true by removing what is not.
 And in doing so, the sentences may fall away,
 many interlinking words, until only some aspect
 of some partial view of a larger conceptualization
 existing beyond this paragraph were identified
 as part of its validity, its extended connection to
 empirical reasoning that validates its truth, via
 others observation and the truth of the world.
 In this way, whatever is true could be seen at
 the higher rate of sampling required for its truth,
 however finite and miniscule a point it may be
 in another context, versus having it forced into
 approximation where this truth equates with all
 of this that is unrelated and unnecessary to it,
 in its purity and isolation as a concept beyond
 this instance. In this way, this sentence and this
 paragraph in their nearly absolute imperfection,
 in this difficulty of language that torments both
 reader and writer who writes, to try to convey
 and yet continually fail, due to this limitation,
 this threshold, boundary condition, where what
 is observed is not able to be seen or talked about
 in this medium because it is so low resolution by
 comparison, everything is a blur, this the default.
 Only [details], only [partial views], hoof after hoof
 after hoof, detail after detail, observation after
 unconnected uncorrelated observation, etc.
 Most essentially, [relativism] upon [relativism].

 The binary view requires this condition to be
 simplified and evaluated in an approximation,
 that this tends towards perfection, in its ideality.
 That to do this involves ignoring the ambiguity,
 so that a typo can invalidate a claim based on
 this superficiality of language upon its surface,
 as if a shiny thing that to be bought and sold.

 The 3-value view recognizes inherent error,
 in this way, fuzzyness by default of ambiguity,
 meaning that that absolute framework of true
 or false is not the starting point, it is the end-
 point of every effort combined and then still
 only contingent upon its truth given evidence.
 In this way, meaning, from ungrounded belief
 that requires power for its authority and rule,
 to logical reasoning based in grounded truth,
 these two very different kinds of enlightenment,
 one even standing against accounting for truth
 while the other not existing without its integrity.

 Then reasoning and exchange, issues like
 [public] and [private], communicated about
 how these might be modeled differently if
 onesided biasing versus its neutralization.
 Anything and everything, in this same way.


 Fuzzy logic then does function as 3-value
 such that it operates in this middle realm,
 and to the degree of its sampling, it can
 move further into and operate in N-value
 conditions, zones where there may be
 more unknowns than knowns, requiring
 logical structures based on the existing
 puzzle pieces to mediate what is unknown
 via extension and evaluation of modeling,
 along with new hypotheses, consideration.
 Perhaps something is already in error that
 is relied upon, and thus contingency, and
 changing, refining of existing approach.


 The condition that exists in observation yet
 especially in language at its most evident
 appears to be that what is observed as an
 event exists in [superposition]. And that if
 this is forced into a biased evaluation, it is
 easy to say 'heads' or 'tails' and remove the
 ambiguity and just assume truth or falsity,
 based on pragmatism relevant to a limited
 viewpoint, where either it is useful or not
 and thus self-interested consideration yet
 not necessarily aligned with larger truth.

 And what the question of fuzzy logic or
 3-value or N-value observation involves
 is that every concept would start within this
 consideration, where instead of absolute
 truth being mediated in these [variables]
 instead what is in superposition is this
 question of their ~partialness, each and
 every concept only a partial view of [X].

 And therefore, if only a partial view, then
 each concept would function as ~concept
 instead or [~X] unless empirically modeled
 and removed of all surrounding, supporting
 error and distortion. In this way, context or
 the contextualization of a variable cannot
 be removed from its surrounding influence.
 It supports and provides the framework and
 'reasoning' as it were, all this extraneousness.

 In this way, a paragraph mentioning [the state]
 and [the economy] and various other attributes
 would instead be modeled as [~the state] in its
 partiality and [~the economy] in its partiality,
 by default of the inherent ambiguousness of these
 variables, that they are not the N-dimensional
 'whole concept' that is separated from this same
 surrounding error in language, nor as concepts
 removed of it themselves such that what is said
 about economy is only 'true'. Thus, until that is
 what is referenced, it is not-true, only partially
 so, and likely only minutely given the context,
 if at all, such as the empty examples above.

 A statement such as [X] [Y] [Z] then while it is
 ideal for binary processing in yes/no terms,
 would instead by default be evaluated as
 [~X] [~Y] [~Z] in a fuzzy logic framework of
 three value and n-value considerations, in
 that this is where ideas start, communication
 exists, exchange, 'reasoning'. And thus while
 ideas may be processed as [XYZ] they are in
 truth more accurately and realistically occurring
 in a realm of [~XYZ] as an observational condition.
 Thus the weighting of truth, 'tending toward truth'
 or 'toward falsity' via weighted analysis/evaluation
 where probabilities have a fundamental role in
 the reasoning process, for grounding of ideas.

 The 'virtual state' relies upon XYZ viewpoints and
 their communication as if acceptable, tolerable,
 and is the basis for power and authority today.
 That it cannot be challenged without retaliation,
 forced submission, this is its power, the oppression.
 Ungrounded relativism is required to sustain its POV.
 Beliefs which function beyond their accounting in truth,
 such perspectives a basis for action; "uncertainty", etc.

 All of these things and viewpoints can be destroyed.
 Discredited, proven false, completely obliterated as
 sustainable ideas within a logic-based evaluation.
 Entire worldviews can be dismantled immediately.

 And the thing about logic is that it is transparent.
 Check the code. Reason it. You have higher truth,
 prove it. Show your cards. Stop the bullshitting.
 Stop playing games. Let's get down to 1's and 0's.


 The big issue is that a [concept] actually exists
 in a state of superposition, a grey-area that is
 being unaccounted for, not properly observed
 or accurately evaluated and these 'errors' allow
 for the given reality, by ignoring the anomalies
 involved, as if a simple heads tails coin toss.

 [X] as absolute truth is the default assumption
 versus that of [~X] in a state of superposition,
 each and every idea only a partial viewpoint.
 In this way, 3-value logic assumes imperfection
 and the question is where things start, that this
 is not in the absolute truth, it is in the gradient,
 on the edge of the coin as normative condition,
 the inverse of the coin-toss in its probabilities.

 The probability [X] is referenced by [~X.POV1]
 of N-dimensions, say a billion, tends towards
 .00000001 of a truth, potentially, not its entirety.
 For that every partial viewpoint would need to
 be combined and error corrected to accurately
 represent the truth of X via shared observation.
 That is not the default condition and yet for the
 binarist, this is the place assumed things start.
 As if X=X simply by referencing the sign, even
 if it is only virtual, ungrounded from the reality.

 X + (trust me) = Y  becomes the situation.

 X + (historical reference) = Y assumes the same.

 There is a grey-area in [~historical reference]
 that never was resolved or removed of its error,
 and so in referencing it, it is not in its purity that
 it exists, it is in this self-annihilating context which
 requires this ambiguity and like a parasite, feeds
 off of this approximation of truth, this inaccuracy
 of interaction and observation to entrap and to
 confine it and make it impossible to go beyond
 this limiting framework, which suits binarists fine,
 because perhaps this is precisely its purpose.

 Once the puzzle is pieced together, the view
 here collapses, as if truth suspended within
 another medium, its skeletal aspect tied to its
 life, buried within this excessiveness of words,
 as if what is required is dusting away with the
 small gestures of hand brooms, excavations
 here and there, yet what if all of it were to be
 removed at once, the sustained falsity then
 what may be made visible of concepts if they
 exist beyond this, no longer hidden within it.

 In other words, ideas existing between truth
 and falsity, the approximation that occurs is
 to estimate and seek to determine given the
 ambiguity and given other viewpoints, what
 may actually exist, this in terms of questions.
 Whereas a binarist may force only answers,
 via a deterministic and predetermined view
 based on beliefs, carried over assumptions.
 Thus a showdown, duels, challenges, this is
 the classic role of thinkers, to take on these
 situations, to reveal a greater truth involved.
 And so what if an ordinary citizen also has
 this capacity to logically reason against the
 machine-view and its many true-believers.


 A few years ago I wrote about panoptic logic
 which is a particular perspective that allows
 for every view of a 360^ situation to be seen,
 as observers encircle a common experience,
 each having their own observations that may
 be unique, and also involves paradox, such
 as the 7-segment rotating 3|E. If this blurring
 were to be stopped, and a single observer
 to look at the situation, they may only see
 one-side of it, an E or 3 or partial condition
 if not its edge. Whereas if every person who
 surrounds this event were to see in their own
 way, their own part or partial view of it, that
 in their correlation and combination, it would
 be possible to model the whole, as both a
 3 and an E and to resolve the spinning 8.

 Without every observer, the partiality may
 never been overcome. Yet with high enough
 resolution of the actual condition or situation
 it feasibly would be possible to account for
 every thing accountable, within whatever
 limits may exist, to gain the most accurate
 modeling from which to evaluate the event.
 Instead of having it bound to one observer
 and their partial view and-or then another.
 If all truth were accounted for, perhaps even
 in the blurred state, that it could be deduced
 to some degree that one-side could be a 3
 and another an E, for instance if like with
 Muybridge a technological extension were
 used, at every point of observation and thus
 even at speed, via these advanced tools, to
 allow for such dizzying specific observations.
 Such that likewise, each person could say,
 30% E and 55% 3, around the circle, until
 the enigma is resolved. The issue could be
 that people are the ones who are spinning.
 The observer is constantly in motion in this
 erratic way, without stabilized observation.
 Essentially without gyroscope or compass.
 Maybe the world is not so confused or so
 entirely confusing and instead it ours, our
 confusion, our incoherence, as a whole.
 Maybe our "cameras" which can sample
 do not have our maps lined up together,
 and thus we each get lost in our own
 hallways of the labyrinth, and yet only
 can access a puzzle piece here or there
 of another, instead of every known solution
 where truth resolves a condition collectively.
 What if each our individual puzzles actually
 a cosmic puzzle, each our own detail of it,
 yet without each other, no such cosmos
 exists, no such map to reference as real.
 Maybe the code saying too simply yes/no
 is distorting vision, creating false views
 and exchange with apparitions instead.
 Changing the code, what might distributed
 sensor networks relay as puzzle pieces if
 what is communicated were neutralized of
 bias, or shared perspective were possible,
 the potential within each view as it may be
 related to others via its truth. In this perhaps
 my broken camera and corrupted coding of
 events and their relay combine with another
 who is not so broken in these ways and has
 their unique vantage to share and likewise
 others, to fill in various gaps of the puzzle.

 It is this navigation, this use of referents
 for their directionality, that is requiring of
 the integrity of language. And thus it is
 proposed it begins in this impossibility
 and ambiguity, imperfection, fuzzyness,
 and by recognizing it, allows realignment
 and also calibration of observation and of
 reasoning, via shared modeling, concepts.
 And so of these, of all the concepts and of
 all the language and of all the questions of
 code, and technology, and culture, there is
 at its base, its origin and foundation in logic.
 That truth is validated, established this way.
 That it is what reasoning is essentially about.
 Accessing, mediating, sharing, clarifying this.
 Today in an imperfect world with chaotic and
 ungrounded connections with one another,
 3-value logic is a tool to establish this truth
 and relations within it, via acknowledging
 this context of partiality it involves. And in
 this way it is entirely possible if not probable
 to address each and every issue that is of
 highest purpose through these means, yet
 it requires this more intense involvement
 with ideas to accomplish, where words
 and their meaning is not simply arbitrary
 when it suits and absolute when needed.

 And thus it seems impossible to not relate
 the observer with what is observed. If the
 observer can see themselves in 3-value
 terms, their own imperfections, so as to
 relate outward and elsewhere this way.
 Some cannot, via whatever limitations,
 and so may not be able to transition to
 a different way of approaching things
 immediately. Yet others may find it very
 natural and just an issue of voicing of
 something already known by experience
 and thus may intuitively and inherently
 understand or even provide additional
 clarification about what this all involves.
 And so perhaps such people can mediate
 these questions from the start in terms of
 exchange, with challenging 2-value views
 yet also in doing so, not from a position of
 'perfection' - instead of humility to truth
 and its observance- that modeling a situation
 often goes beyond a given viewpoint or
 perspective, and requires neutrality for
 observation, error-correction, and also
 contingency, in addition to the unknown.
 It's a different mindset than what exists.
 Because if truth prevails, we all prevail.

 An ungrounded binarist would be terrified
 by the uncontrollable unknown, they want
 to stop it from being allowed, its recognition
 because that is its reality, becoming [sign].

 A 3-value or paradoxical thinker is at least
 operational within the ambiguity, unlike the
 insecure binarist, and can navigate chaos
 via hidden order otherwise unaccounted for.
 It is an intuitive realm, this typic potentiality.

 The working-model or hypothesis key, these
 as concepts even, frameworks or whatever
 they may be called. Thus, sharing of ideas
 like tools to use in given situations, so to
 work-through or better observe, understand.
 The panoptics already occurring yet not yet
 aligned in a coherent way to enable supra-
 structure of observation beyond the finite.

 The biggest challenge for the personal shift
 is achieving grounding as an observer, so
 to be able to function in diverse conditions,
 to retain balance and clear thinking despite
 chaos or biasing or power-based influences.
 Logical reasoning is this capacity, for sanity.
 For good decision-making. For neutralization
 and error-correction. Self as feedback circuit.
 These types of diagnostics arrive through a
 3-value or N-value framework, not the binary
 because they are avoidable via onesidedness.
 So in this sense, in this individual question of
 capacity, it is of the superposition of the self
 in its potential to function at its highest level,
 such that the [~individual] is in a situation,
 and to reach their more true self requires
 accurately modeling and governing of the
 self, such that by moving in the optimal way
 and in the best direction, making the correct
 and right decisions, better versus worse, it
 then tends towards an improved version,
 where this motivation is to the [individual]
 in their purified state, as the working-goal.

 And thus as [~people] relate with [~people]
 more and more through 3-value connections
 this becomes [people] relating with ourselves
 by figuring out the puzzle, the interconnectivity,
 grounding it, establishing shared working-models
 and purpose, and this begins within the grey-area.

 The logic it involves is deemably common sense.
 It just may take awhile to figure it out, how it works
 or as language, as method, how to communicate
 within the range it provides, more effectively or
 within shifted rulesets if not new tools than what
 today is allowed for communication and exchange.

 It is not a goal to write at length about these things
 yet it is required to share the ideas they involve,
 in the hope of clarifying the truth proposed to exist
 if evaluating this context in terms other than binary.
 There is overlap in this attempt at explanation of
 aspects involved, likely creating more confusion
 of an already confusing situation to evaluate. It
 is inherent, it is a limit of a finite observation of
 a flawed observer with a high-error rate where
 even the signal deteriorates before it is sent.

 I appreciate the chance to share these ideas
 because they have been like discoveries and
 perhaps others may find them of some use.

 And in this way, it would seem that there is a
 realm of practical logic that is not that of the
 expert system of mathematical notation and
 its abstract language - yet can have a similar
 effect for human reasoning and processing,
 as fuzzy sets have for computers & robots.

 And it is seemingly this 3-value and N-value
 ability that opens up reasoning to the way the
 world may more actually exist in its modeling.
 The questions of the N-dimensional realm that
 exist beyond the ordinary boundaries of today,
 of ruling and banal opinions, where the median
 condition becomes the height of everything as
 it is mediocritized. Language serves this well.
 It is a great leveler for status quo consensus.
 Like always picking the fruit low to the ground,
 the atmosphere of ideas made inaccessible.


 Brian Carroll


#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org